Citigroup lays off 50,000 BUT wants to spend $400 MILLION for a name on a stadium!!??

[Gyaos]

The C-suckers at CitiGroup are in trouble again using tax payer dollars to put up a plastic name on a stadium at the cost of 50,000 jobs!! Add this to their $50 million jet they want to skydive into the stadium for. When will this ever end?

Gyaos Baltar

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2009-01-30-congress-citigroup_N.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two congressmen want Citigroup out of Citi Field.

Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Ted Poe sent a letter to new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Thursday, urging the government to demand that the company drop its $400 million, 20-year agreement for naming rights to the New York Mets' ballpark. The stadium opens in April.

"At Citigroup, 50,000 people will lose their jobs. Yet in the boardroom of Citigroup, spending $400 million to put a name on stadium seems like a good idea," said Kucinich (D-Ohio). "The Treasury Department, which forced Citigroup corporate executives to give up their private jet, should also demand that Citigroup cancel its $400 million advertisement at the Mets field and instead begin to repay their debt to the taxpayers."

Citigroup reached its agreement with the Mets three years ago. It is among several American banks that have received financial assistance from the federal government in recent months.

"Citigroup claimed it was on the brink of financial disaster, then demanded and took $45 billion from the taxpayers through government giveaways," said Poe (R-Texas). "While average Americans are hunkering down worried about their jobs, food, clothes, and mortgage payments, these irresponsible executives are blowing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars."

 

[Mia.Colpa]

Obama better get involved with this one and fast, this will make the government look more stupid than how Bush already left it.

 

[good to go]

They need to line them up in a row and use one high powered rifle shot to kill them all.

 

[crystalpalace]

They need to line them up in a row and use one high powered rifle shot to kill them all.

That's fine and dandy however, these are the same type of people who made loans and mortgages possible in the past. I didn't see many people complaint before when they were able to "afford" everything on credit. The problem is the people not the bankers.

 

[mac]

It's nuts.....just like all the bonuses paid out by companies that took TARP money and just like the $50 million corporate jet onbe company was going to take possession of until the press got hold of it. It;s going to take time to stop the runaway train of excessess that these idots have lived on for years. I just don't think the governement is going to be able to outlaw stupidity.....the US jails won't be bif enough.

 

[WoodPeckr]

The problem is the people not the bankers.

The problem is the crooked Banksters that told people they could afford those loans not caring about what would happen as long as their commissions kept flowing....

I second the 'chinese solution' put a bullet in the Banksters heads.....

 

[red]

its a three year old agreement. they can't just walk unless the mets agree

 

[crystalpalace]

The problem is the crooked Banksters that told people they could afford those loans not caring about what would happen as long as their commissions kept flowing....

I second the 'chinese solution' put a bullet in the Banksters heads.....

Bankers are in the business to make money so of course they will tell the people they can afford such and such, The onus is on every person to sit down and do simple math and figure if they are willing to risk an arm and a leg for that 5 bedroom house and Escalade!

To somehow imply that people are off the hook cause bankers are crooked is exactly why we're in this mess right now, irresponsibility! Both on the side of bankers and more so on the side of the people.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Dubya's Deregulation and neutering the remaining regulators left played a major part in this messs too!....

He set these crooked Bankster foxes free......

Crooks like Madoff should be in a cell NOT his luxury penthouse!

 

[Rockslinger]

Bankers are in the business to make money so of course they will tell the people they can afford such and such,

This is like dumb and dumber. Is the lender the dumber or the borrower? Would anybody on TERB be dumb enough to lend money to someone who can't repay?

 

[WoodPeckr]

This is like dumb and dumber. Is the lender the dumber or the borrower? Would anybody on TERB be dumb enough to lend money to someone who can't repay?

bottie armed with his 'Fuzzy Math' would!

bottie bragged that was how Dubya 'delivered real economic performance'!...

 

[Gyaos]

The problem is the people not the bankers.

If bankers take people's money without the people having a say, it's the bankers. Where is Hank Paulson at this moment?

Gyaos Baltar.

 

[viking1965]

It's hard to defend Citibank, but the agreement was reached THREE YEARS AGO!!!!

There's a contractual obligation involved here. If they reneged, they'd be in court for years (itself an expensive proposition).

Their only real option (and I think they should look into it) is re-selling the rights to some other corporation, although they would most likely have to take a loss to do it.

 

[Gyaos]

It's hard to defend Citibank, but the agreement was reached THREE YEARS AGO!!!! There's a contractual obligation involved here. If they reneged, they'd be in court for years (itself an expensive proposition)..

I agree, BUT Citibank lost all their money. Now the money is the governments, so if the government says NO, then it's NO. Citibank can use their own money, or collapse.

Oh, they don't have any money. So contract falls through, Citibank collapses, good riddance to them. What makes them any different to someone else who collapses and makes an F'd up deal using massive amounts of debt to make a profit, then it all crashes before the deal is finalized.

Gyaos Baltar.

 

[alexmst]

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Bonuses for Wall Street fat cats are easy political fodder in uncertain economic times, but former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Friday cutting corporate bonuses means slashing jobs in the Big Apple.

Rudy Giuliani says that when he was mayor, he gauged the New York City budget by Wall Street bonuses.

"If you somehow take that bonus out of the economy, it really will create unemployment," he said on CNN's "American Morning." "It means less spending in restaurants, less spending in department stores, so everything has an impact."

President Obama admonished corporate America on Thursday after the New York comptroller reported that Wall Street bankers received $18.4 billion in bonuses in 2008.

"This is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful," the president said. Watch Obama blast Wall Street »

These are the same institutions "teetering on collapse" and asking taxpayers to bail them out while taxpayers are dealing with their own tumultuous finances, he said.

Last year, Congress passed a $700 billion bailout for financial institutions, and an $819 billion economic stimulus package is presently making its way through the Senate after garnering House approval Wednesday.

"There will be time for [bankers] to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses -- now is not that time," Obama said of the bonuses, which were about equal to those of 2004.


--------------------

Yes, trickle-down economics can work. However, should the taxpayers be paying the bill so executives can wine and dine and buy art, cars, Nikon D3X's, jewelry, etc? If the company is making money hand over fist, sure, shower them with loot and it will help the economy as they spend it. But having taxpayers foot the bill by means of government bailouts? No bank that needs a bailout should issue ANY bonuses to anybody. A bonus is related to the company making good profits.

 

[viking1965]

I agree, BUT Citibank lost all their money. Now the money is the governments, so if the government says NO, then it's NO. Citibank can use their own money, or collapse.

Oh, they don't have any money. So contract falls through, Citibank collapses, good riddance to them. What makes them any different to someone else who collapses and makes an F'd up deal using massive amounts of debt to make a profit, then it all crashes before the deal is finalized.

Gyaos Baltar.

You've oversimplified it. They're still "afloat". Yes it's partially from the benefit of a government loan, but they're still "liquid".

The Stadium Naming Rights are not a tangible good, like a $50MM airplane, that you can just "give back". Even in that case, they lost some "deposit" money.

Either Citi, or possibly the government, need to re-sell those naming rights to the highest bidder. But it would almost undoubtedly be at a loss.

 

[viking1965]

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Bonuses for Wall Street fat cats are easy political fodder in uncertain economic times, but former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Friday .....

Yup, saw this earlier today myself. I thought, "Gee Rudy, give me one of their bonuses and I'll stimulate your economy."

Amazingly, Giuliani got through the entire discussion without mentioning 9/11 even once.

 

[Aardvark154]

I agree, BUT Citibank lost all their money. Now the money is the governments, so if the government says NO, then it's NO. Citibank can use their own money, or collapse.

But is the U.S. Government going to pay CitiBanks's legal costs or damages?

 

[mac]

But is the U.S. Government going to pay CitiBanks's legal costs or damages?

they already have...they have given them over 50 billion dollars.....don't get all legal agreement on us...it's wrong, it's stupid, and they can change anything they want if they are motivated. Oh and btw, isn't citibank the guys that pulled the plug on the $42 billion purchase of BCE. Seems they figured out a way out of that when it suited their fancy.

 

[Aardvark154]

Yet another point (although I'm not defending the amount involved) is where does this stop? What advertising is CitiBank allowed? If one ten million dollar advertising investment has a far "bigger bang" than a hundred and fifty $10,000 advertising purchases, should Citi be allowed the ten million dollars?